Crisis Management and Global Risk Factors

Tourism During the Era of Polycrisis

The global tourism industry operates within an increasingly unstable environment characterized by interconnected and escalating international threats, a situation now described as an evolving “polycrisis” (Gössling & Scott, 2024). A polycrisis occurs when crises across multiple global systems become “causally entangled in ways that significantly degrade humanity’s prospects,” causing damages that are “greater than the sum of those the crises would produce in isolation” (Gössling & Scott, 2024, p. 69). This evolving reality challenges traditional crisis management approaches. As Gössling and Scott (2024) highlighted, “Tourism faces a range of interconnected and potentially transformative global risks – collectively considered an evolving polycrisis – that have not been adequately defined and understood” (p. 65). This gap inhibits the industry’s ability to foresee future challenges and leaves governments without crucial insights for long-term strategy. This paper surveys current research on tourism crises, providing a comprehensive overview. It starts with defining risk and crisis concepts, then explores empirical evidence on these threats, from geopolitical conflicts to climate change, and concludes with an analysis of strategic responses in communication, marketing, and management. Finally, it proposes a unified research agenda to prepare the industry for upcoming challenges better.

Understanding Risk and Crisis in Tourism

To manage tourism crises effectively, it is essential first to define clear terminology, as academic sources often confuse risk, crisis, and disaster (Gössling & Scott, 2024). A risk is described as the “possibility of loss or injury,” indicating a predictable and measurable threat (Merriam-Webster, as cited in Gössling & Scott, 2024, p. 66). A crises refers to “a situation that has reached a critical phase,” whereas a disaster is “a sudden calamitous event bringing great damage, loss, or destruction” (Merriam-Webster, as cited in Gössling & Scott, 2024, p. 66).

Beyond these definitions, the theoretical frameworks for understanding crises are also developing. Traditional crisis management has often depended on linear, phased models (e.g., pre-crisis, crisis event, post-crisis) (Wut et al., 2021). However, these deterministic models are increasingly seen as inadequate for the complexity of modern crises (Choi & Hyun, 2024). In response, Chaos Theory offers a non-linear alternative, viewing crises as unpredictable events that force systems to adapt and self-organize. In this framework, a crisis is not just a threat but a turning point; it is a “radical change that includes both positive and harmful changes,” highlighting the transformation before and after a specific moment in history (Choi & Hyun, 2024, p. 2). Complementing this systemic approach, the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) explains how risk perceptions are socially constructed. SARF suggests that communication processes can either intensify (amplify) or weaken (attenuate) the public perception of a threat, often independent of its objective reality (Shakeela & Becken, 2014).

The Complex Dimensions of Tourism Crises: Evidence from Research

These theoretical frameworks provide tools for analyzing various crises affecting the industry. Among these, geopolitical and security threats are some of the most critical challenges. Research shows that political instability (PI) is a major, long-term threat to tourism, often more damaging than isolated terrorist acts (Saha & Yap, 2013). As Saha & Yap (2013) explain, “Tourism is an important sector that generates tax revenue and alleviates poverty, especially in developing countries. However, this industry can easily deteriorate owing to political and social unrest” (p. 509). The combination of political instability and terrorism is particularly destructive, significantly decreasing tourist numbers and revenue. The impact of terrorism alone can be complex; sometimes it may positively influence certain economic factors, and in stable areas, isolated attacks might even increase tourism through “dark tourism” phenomena (Lennon & Foley, 2000, as cited in Akamavi et al., 2022, p. 1758).

Environmental crises present a unique but equally significant challenge, particularly in how risk is perceived and managed. The Maldives exemplifies how coastal destinations face existential threats from climate change, yet policy actions often stall due to a gap between actual risk and socially constructed perceptions (Shakeela & Becken, 2014). This gap manifests in two ways. First, risk is overstated for international audiences to secure funding and aid. As one NGO representative stated, “One of the questions we are asked repeatedly by overseas visitors is that you are talking a lot about Maldives going, because of climate change and, so, what are you doing as a nation to address this? When they ask this we don’t really have even a single example to show” (Shakeela & Becken, 2014, p. 74). Simultaneously, risk is downplayed for local audiences to preserve the country’s “paradise” image, maintain investor confidence, and due to cultural fatalism, which hinders timely policy action. Another official lamented, “If you look at the Disaster Management Bill, it hasn’t been endorsed; it has been in draft form since 2006. It has not passed the Parliament yet…” (Shakeela & Becken, 2014, p. 76).

Finally, health crises act as major systemic shocks. The COVID-19 pandemic is a prime example of a “transformational crisis” that exposed the deep vulnerabilities of the global tourism system (Choi & Hyun, 2024, p. 1). The pandemic’s significant impact is evident in the large surge of academic research it inspired, with 79 papers on the topic published by the end of 2020 alone (Wut et al., 2021).

Strategic Approaches: Shifting from Communication to Adaptive Management

In the face of these complex crises, strategic responses must also evolve. Crisis communication has shifted from a one-way, sender-focused model to a dynamic and “transactive process” where meaning is co-created with stakeholders, especially through social media (Liu-Lastres, 2022, p. 1963). While research in this area is mainly guided by Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), which aligns response strategies with crisis type and responsibility, a significant research gap remains in the precrisis phase. Most studies focus on response and recovery, neglecting proactive planning and preparedness (Liu-Lastres, 2022; Wut et al., 2021). As Liu-Lastres (2022) states, “A paradigm shift implies that researchers should move beyond descriptive studies with an ‘ad-hoc’ approach and be topic driven” (p. 1974).

Making strategies must be nuanced, particularly for destinations with long-standing negative images caused by ongoing issues like conflict. These destinations need different approaches than those affected by a single crisis (Avraham & Ketter, 2013). Their strategies span the core problem, such as using satire or humor, like Israel once distributed condoms with the slogan ‘Israel – It’s safe to come ' to playfully address safety concerns (Avraham & Ketter, 2013, p. 155). On the other end is the Strategic Approach, which involves comprehensive actions to change both the perception and the underlying issues, like reducing crime or improving security (Avraham & Ketter, 2013). This approach supports more sustainable, long-term recovery.

Ultimately, navigating a chaotic environment demands developing adaptive capacity and resilience. Effective management needs to shift from rigid plans to promoting flexibility and collaboration (Choi & Hyun, 2024). The COVID-19 crisis, for instance, underscored the urgent importance of public-private partnerships and collaborative governance to bring order to chaos. An expert observed, “The evolution of crisis management strategies in the South Korean tourism industry reflects a broader trend toward collaborative governance models” (Choi & Hyun, 2024, p. 6). Moving forward, resilience will rely on embracing systemic change, particularly through technology and smart tourism. One official emphasized, “It is critical to strengthen the technological competitiveness in the face of the digital paradigm shift” (Choi & Hyun, 2024, p. 7).

Conclusion and Future Research Directions

In summary, the global tourism sector operates within a complex polycrisis environment characterized by interconnected, nonlinear threats that are often socially constructed. To manage these challenges effectively, it is essential to shift from reactive, image-focused recovery approaches to proactive, reality-based strategies that foster long-term adaptability. Achieving this requires a comprehensive research agenda. First, priorities should include prevention and preparedness, addressing the notable research gap in the precrisis phase (Wut et al., 2021; Liu-Lastres, 2022). Second, the discipline must advance theoretical frameworks, moving past descriptive, event-driven studies toward robust theory development to better comprehend complex crisis dynamics (Liu-Lastres, 2022). Lastly, research must expand to include long-term global risks, looking beyond localized disasters to encompass significant threats such as climate change and geopolitical changes that will fundamentally alter the industry. As Gössling and Scott (2022) noted, “Tourism will forever be different because of these global risks” (pp. 69-70).

References Cited

Akamavi, R. K., Ibrahim, F., & Swaray, R. (2023). Tourism and Troubles: Effects of Security Threats on the Global Travel and Tourism Industry Performance. Journal of Travel Research, 62(8), 1755–1800. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875221138792 

Avraham, E., & Ketter, E. (2013). Marketing Destinations with Prolonged Negative Images: Towards a Theoretical Model. Tourism Geographies, 15(1), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2011.647328 

Choi, J. O., & Hyun, S. S. (2024). Chaos theory perspective on tourism crisis management: A case study of the COVID‐19 pandemic in South Korea. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 26(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2713 

Gössling, S., & Scott, D. (2025). Tourism in the polycrisis: a Horizon 2050 paper. Tourism Review (Association Internationale d’experts Scientifiques Du Tourisme), 80(1), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2024-0519

Liu, B. (2022). Beyond simple messaging: a review of crisis communication research in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(5), 1959–1983. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2021-1404 

Saha, S., & Yap, G. (2014). The Moderation Effects of Political Instability and Terrorism on Tourism Development: A Cross-Country Panel Analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 53(4), 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513496472 

Shakeela, A., & Becken, S. (2015). Understanding tourism leaders’ perceptions of risks from climate change: an assessment of policy-making processes in the Maldives using the social amplification of risk framework (SARF). Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2014.918135 

Wut, T. M., Xu, J. (Bill), & Wong, S. (2021). Crisis management research (1985–2020) in the hospitality and tourism industry: A review and research agenda. Tourism Management, 85, Article 104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104307